Saturday, May 23, 2015

Susan:You do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not? Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible.

Lionel:Susan you could compartmentalise your thinking.Accept the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood and compartmentalise this.Do not link it to anything i.e not to the dogma.Then think about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and do not link it to anything, not to baptism of desire and blood. Compartmentalise it.

Now in the same way accept LG 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance), LG 8 ( being saved with elements of sanctification and truth), NA 2, UR 3 etc and compartmentalise it. Do not link it with anything. Just accept it.

In the same way accept AG 7 and LG 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All.

This is how it was accepted over the centuries. They did not connect one with the other.

It was the Masons, Americanists and others over a century who had been campaigning against the dogma. They wanted to get rid of it. So they linked the two. They linked being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma.So the popes have had to respond to them. So they began referring to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire when they began talking about the dogma. Since the Americanists had made the connection.

Then in Boston the enemies of the Church had their big victory when the Holy Office 1949 accepted it. It was then included in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the error was blatant in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,1257).This was the new theology.

So now if you look at it compartmentalised, as separate, without any connection between the two, you can accept the baptism of desire and blood ( both are invisible for us) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( which says all need to be formal members of the Church in the present tmes).This does not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.Here you will be avoiding the SSPX, MICM and Vatican Curia model which connects the two.So if asked, you could say that you accept the baptism of desire and blood and also the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they are not connected.-Lionel Andradeshttp://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2015/05/unjust-laws-and-civil-disobedience.html?showComment=1432407014214#c8832958539881543895Can you look at this issue without the models used by the SSPX and the MICM ?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/can-you-look-at-this-issue-without.html

Susan:You do grasp the concept that we are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not? Baptisms of blood and desire I would imagine are pretty rare, but most certainly possible.Lionel:Susan when you link(connect) the baptism of blood and desire here you are using liberal theology, the same as the SSPX and MICM. They make the same mistake.Can you accept the baptism of desire and blood, period ? Can you assume these cases are not explicit for us ? Can you accept that these cases are always implicit and invisible for us?So you will be accepting the traditional interpretation of the dogma and also an invisible for us ( and known only to God) baptism of desire and blood.Can you look at this issue like this and without the models used by the SSPX and the MICM?

Prof. Roberto de Mattei, whom I respect and whose work I appreciate, unfortunately also uses apparition theology . A professor of history he interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past. He uses the hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of the Council similar to the liberals and heretics whom he criticizes.The Rhine Flows into the Tiber is one of his books.The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, yes- because of apparition theology.So while remaining legal in Rome he changes the Catholic Faith with an irrational interpretation of magisterial documents.

This is the policy at the Legion of Christ and other Catholic universities in Italy.Some of my good former professors at the university, well meaning persons, are using this theology.

The Legion of Chirst priests, are good priests, dedicated persons, but they are being forced by the Vatican to use an irrationality, a false premise and inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents.It keeps them legal.

This is important, for important persons in the political Left machinery, who oversee the university and the Vatican.

So to avoid being targeted by the Left as some type of 'hater' Roberto Mattei, Corrado Gnerre and other good people, infer that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite version of the dogma. This may be legal and politically correct and this keeps them employed but this is irrational and a lie.

Many may ask: what is Apparition Theology ?Apparition Theology (AT) is the new theology which emerged in the Catholic Church with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.It replaces the traditional 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It postulates that there is known salvation outside the Church and so every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church in the present times.It suggests that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It presumes that these cases are physically visible and known in the present times( apparitions) to become exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is upon the premise of being able to see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith that it infers that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma, the Feeneyite version.It is upon this irrationality of knowing objective exceptions to the dogma in the present times, that Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits supported the new theology, a 'development' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In Vatican Council II, being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire was mentioned in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 along with orthodox passages supporting the dogma.So Catholics have inferred that there are known exceptions to the dogma.This new theology was also enforced in Vatican Council II when the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was still not lifted and he was dismissed from the Jesuit community.There was no correction issued when secular media reports said that the Church had changed its position on the dogma.The new Apparition Theology, was accomodated by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257) which says God is not limited to the Sacraments.In other words the cardinal knew of explicit exceptions to the traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation.Also CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, again denying the necessity of formal membership in the Church and implying that there are known exceptions.Magisterial documents ( Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc) accomodate AT and do not affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.The International Theological Commission in two papers ( Christianity and the World Religions and The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptised) clearly support AT.Apparition Theology was also used in the Balamand Declaration.AT is based on a factual error ( being able to see explicit salvation in Heaven in the present times) and has replaced ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It suggests that there are cases of persons in Heaven saved with faith and baptism and they are physically visible on earth to beceome exceptions to traditional ecclesiology.Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Ecclesia di Eucharestia excluded AT when it suggested that everyone needs the Eucharist for salvation.Cardinal Walter Kasper criticized it on the cover page of the Italian magazine 30 Giorni for its support of the ecclesiology of outside the Church there is no salvation.The term Apparition Theology emerged on the blog Eucharist and Mission in response to Michael Voris and E.Michael Jones' criticism of Medugorje.They both use AT as if they have their own apparitions.AT determines how we interpret Vatican Council II.With Apparition Theology LG 16, NA 2, UR 3 etc become exceptions to the dogma.Without AT they are only possibilities.They are hypothethical cases followed by the baptism of water.So theoretical possibilities ( with or without the baptism of water) cannot be objective exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church in 2015.Without Apparition Theology there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.Without AT we have an ecumenism of return and inter religious dialogue according to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Apparition Theology emerged due to the silence in defending the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

On May 11, at the European University of Rome a conference was held on "unjust laws and civil disobedience". The conference was organized by the Faculty of Human Sciences at the University. The administration invited the legal historian, Luca Galantini and the legal philosopher Tommaso Scandroglio. According to a report on the Eponymous Flower,the ' systematic treatment of the subject was initially engaged from an ethical and legal philosophical point of view, illuminating the definition of an "unjust act". Secondly the event was the to explore historically as a focus the facultas resistendi against unjust laws as an expression of a legitimate and compelling social contradiction. Finally, a bridge to the present day was completed with references to government efforts to introduce unjust laws in legitimate jurisdictions, thus exercising unacceptable coercion.'

What was not reported is that the European University of Rome and its sister organisation in the same premises, the University Pontificial Regina Apostolorum have accepted unjust anti-Semitism, racists and proselytism laws. So they have changed Catholic dogma and doctrine to 'adapt' to these new laws. They have also accepted these laws, defacto, in discipline.So Catholic students who affirm the Faith, are expelled or not allowed to sit for exams.The priest-professors of the Legion of Christ religious community, and the lay Catholic professors, at these two universities are not teaching Catholic truths to avoid litigation and a bad mark on their teaching careers. This changing of Church teachings, in order not to succumb to unjust laws is the norm accepted by the Legion of Christ administration the Vatican and the Rome Vicariate.They have compromised.I personally know the professors and students at these two universities, since I studied Philosophy at UPRA for three years and was not allowed to sit for the Jurisidiction exam or continue studies because of the many people protesting against my Catholic beliefs on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. My Catholic beliefs which were in accord with Vatican Council II seemed to violate the leftist laws and so the university felt threathened financially.So the present legal position of the two Legion of Christ universities in Rome are :-Every one does not need to defacto convert into the Catholic Church for salvation in 2015 since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words there are known exceptions in the present times.Salvation in Heaven is visible on earth to become exceptions to the dogma.

They are using irrational, apparition theology to interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a break with the past.The professors, including Roberto De Mattei, use apparition theology, the visible-dead premise, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, for example, and so remain legal and employed.This is the teaching position of the Dean of Theology, the Chaplain and professos of Philosophy.-Lionel Andrades

Church Militant.com, SSPX and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM) are using liberal theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salusand even after being informed are not making the changes.They could simply announce that people saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), elements of sanctification and truth(NA 2) are not personally known to us in May 2015. So they cannot be exceptions to the rigorist intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. To please their bishops or superiors, or for whatever other reason, they are still keeping silent on this issue.

How can being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma when we do not know of any case?Even if someone is saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water, it's a 'zero case' for us.So why aren't the bishops of Detroit, Worcester and Manchester,USA infomed about this in public by Church Militant and the St. Benedict Centers?In the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus Christine Niles quoted Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus but she left out the phrase 'Jews, heretics and schismatics'. She avoided saying something which would displease some people. She was respecting people and shelving the truth.She definitely avoided saying people saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are irrelevant to the dogma and they are definitely not exceptions.Instead she quoted the Letter of the Holy Office and repeated the lie.Then she and Fr.Roman Manchester promoted the irrational theology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the popular liberal theology.They never said that humanly speaking there cannot be any exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.When you make a link between being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, your in liberal theology, the new theology.In the past Michael Voris was comfortable in asking Fr.Jonathan Morris in the Archdiocese of New York, to name someone in the present times who did not need to enter the Catholic Church, to be saved.He will not though, put this same question to the bishops in general i.e "Who do they know in 2015 who will be saved without 'faith and baptism' and in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire?"

Similarly Brother Thomas Augustine MICM and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Priors, at the St.Benedict Centers in New England, USA have not announced that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 8, NA 2 etc do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would put them in opposition to the Vatican.This would mean their ecclesiology after Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and this would be ideological for Pope Francis.REMAIN MAGISTERIALYet they all can affirm being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire along with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This was being done in pre-1949 times.The difference between then and now is the use of liberal theology, appartion theology, the dead-man walking theory.

If being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not refer to dead-men walking, then they are not exceptions.This is the difference between the past and today.

Do not use the irrational inference and your back to the old theology, the old ecclesiology, usually associated with the Traditional Latin Mass, even though it is independent of the liturgy.

CM, SSPX and MICM must know that they cannot be accused of rejecting the Catholic Faith. Since they are affirming invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (AG 7,LG 14) and also the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They can have it both ways. It does not have to be an either /or choice.No one can say that they are denying being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and neither can it be said that they are denying the rigorist, traditional interpretation of the dogma.

They are only rejecting a popular theology, used to interpret Church documents. It is a popular theology which they also use. They are now doing theology, based on an irrational premise i.e being able to personally see in the present times people in Heaven saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Then they infer that these ghosts are exceptions to the dogma.Some accept the conclusion others reject it.By rejecting the new irrational theology, they are rejecting an interpretation of the dogma, a 'development' of the dogma based on Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's personal and new theory.Possibly, CM,SSPX,MICM and others are waiting for some one else to make the first move.They want someone else to pick up the flak before they affirm the truth of the Faith.-Lionel Andrades

Susan.C'mon Lionel...the SSPX and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are the ones you're calling liberal??? Lionel:Any one who says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a liberal.The Angelus Press of the SSPX (USA) has published a book 'Is Feeneyism Catholic' by Fr.Francois Laisney, which assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is apparition theology, liberal theology.There are liberal consequences, non traditional results. Since there are known exceptions for the SSPX (USA), all do not need to enter the Catholic Church in the present times.Sounds familiar. Pope Francis....Since there are known exceptions , there are exceptions to the traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political systems. Every one doesn't have to be Catholic to go to Heaven....Since there are known exceptions, an ecumenism of return is good but it is not obligatory for salvation.This is all liberalism._______________

The Slaves of the Immaculate affirm the dogma correctly and God bless them for this but- for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Vatican Council II is a break with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, LG 8 etc refer to known exceptions in the present times. They would have to be known to be exceptions to the dogma. And if they are known in 2015 they are apparitions of the dead! How can being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), a ray of the that Truth which saves (NA 2) etc be a known or unknown exception to the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? How can it even be relevant to the dogma?So like the liberals, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary ( and the SSPX) say that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma. For me this is liberalism, since I affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II. The Council is not 'ambigous' for me, with reference to the dogma.For the SSPX and the MICM, Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition._____________________

Pull your head out of your nether region, and quite eating the good guys.Lionel:The good guys are using the same irrationality as the Vatican Curia.They are part of the problem and not the solution.

Seriously, you're doing francis' work....think about that.Lionel:I am affirming the rigorist interpretation of the dogma in agreement with Vatican Council II. So my ecclesiology is ecclesiocentric, if I attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass. For me Vatican Council II supports an ecumenism of return (AG 7 and LG 14) and there are no exceptions mentioned in the Council II. For me the Council is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, since I avoid Marchetti's error.Does Pope Francis say this ? No!Do the SSPX and MICM say this ? No!Then who do you think really supports Pope Francis and the error in the Catholic Church?The good guys!